*1 1364

remedy help- provide in should Smith a guideline proceedings

ful for the further

in this case. prior

Our discussion does not plaintiff

cover the claim of Coleman. respect The situation with to is Coleman

entirely different than that of the re

maining plaintiffs. undisputed The evi teaching dence discloses on Coleman was emergency expired

an certificate which August 31, on 1968. The Board had no

assurance that Coleman would be able to for the 1968-69

obtain a certificate year.

school The Board in its minutes proper

stated that the lack of the certif denying the

icate was reason for Cole reemployment.

man The trial court

properly determined that such is a valid nondiscriminatory

and for the ac basis peti

tion taken. The dismissal of the

tion as to is affirmed. Coleman judgment plain-

The is affirmed as to plaintiffs

tiff As to the L. R. Coleman.

Jackson, Mittie and Malissa Jackson

Meeks, judgment the the is vacated and the trial for is remanded to court

case conformity proceedings futher in with opinion. expressed in

the views this DOOR, INC., Petitioner-

STEVES SASH & Cross-Respondent, v. Weiss, Theo F. Manitzas, Frank S. San NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Antonio, Tex., petitioner-eross-re- for BOARD, Respondent-Cross- spondent; Knight, Clemens Weiss & Petitioner. Spencer, Antonio, Tex., San of counsel. No. 28370. Mallet-Prevost, Marcel Asst. Gen. Counsel, Appeals, Counsel, Ordman, United States Court of Arnold- Gen. Fifth Circuit. Manoli, Dominick L. Associate Gen. C„ 7, Counsel, July B., Washington, 1970. D. N. L. R. 23, Region Potter, Director, Clifford Rehearing Rehearing Denied and En Nash, B., Tex., Eli Houston, N. R. L. 1, Sept. Banc Denied 1970. C., Washington, Jr., Itkin, Frank H. D. respondent-cross-petitioner.

for AINSWORTH, WISDOM, and Before CLARK, Judges. Circuit 1365 *2 PER CURIAM: CORPORATION, Plaintiff- The HERTZ just of this ease is another This Appellant, being an NLRB asked to review Court’s v. company violated Section a that decision Crowe, Donald COX and C. Sarah 8(a) (3) (1) Labor National and of the Defendants-Appellees. discharging by an em Relations Act No. 26251. alleged union

ployee of her because usual, Appeals, evidence there is United States Court of As activities. Fifth Circuit. discharged employee for that was the 2, good Sept. her union unrelated to cause 1970. activities; that the there is also evidence

respondent employee because fired the What an for the union. she was activist might have result Court

ever this Board, reached, must we had it been the supports

say that substantial evidence

the Board’s decision. Board the that also hold

We arbitra to the to defer

properly declined provided in the collective procedures

tion v. agreement. Walt bargaining NLRB 1945, 146 Productions, Cir. Disney 9 877, denied, 48, U.S. cert. 324 44, F.2d also, 1025, See 1429. 89 L.Ed. 65 S.Ct. 1967, Co., 385 Industrial Acme NLRB v. 565, 436-437, L.Ed. 432, 87 S.Ct. 17 U.S. Corp., 2 495; Bell Aircraft NLRB v. 2d 236; 235, v. 1953, NLRB Cir., 206 F.2d 1955, 220 F. Wagner Cir. Iron 7 Works, denied, 136-137, 126, 350 U.S. cert. 2d 850; Illinois 466, L.Ed. 981, 100 S.Ct. 76 NLRB, Cir. Transport Corp. 8 Ruan v. 274,

1968, 280. 404 F.2d denied; the petition is review

The for in full. order is enforced

Board's REHEARING

ON PETITION FOR REHEAR- PETITION FOR

AND EN BANC

ING

PER CURIAM: Rehearing

The Petition for denied is Judge panel

and of no member nor this regular

in Court active service on the

having polled requested the that Court be rehearing banc, (Rule

on en 35 Federal Procedure; Appellate

Rules of Local 12) for

Fifth Circuit Rule the Petition

Rehearing En Banc is denied.